Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (53756)	9/24/2013 12:57:19 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	5 Recommendations Recommended By dave rose Jorj X Mckie longnshort Paul Smith Thehammer Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I am always amused that some folks can be convinced that CO2 that is increasing from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts now and then to 5 or 6 parts is going to have some dramatic influence. Now this is while H20 water vapour is ranging from 50 parts in 10,000 to 400 plus parts. Yes and H20 is maybe 100 times the green house gas as CO2 based upon the range of frequencies is resonates with. The variations of H20 vary daily, weekly, monthly, seasonally. So when I do simple math of ratios, some proffer of warming based upon a small change in a trace gas is going to have huge changes in energy absorbed and raise temperatures is just stupid. All speculations of said change are just that. Those speculation were programmed into models. All models predictions has been no where near observations. The models are shit. Observations are the only way to verify and demonstrate the truth or bullshit. If one can think critically, the conclusions are obvious. I know the science and long ago knew the CO2 fear was total crap. Now Roy W. Spencers observations have proof beyond any reasonable doubt.